top of page

Big Tech’s Viral Vax Blackout


The Big Tech arbiters of truth don’t want you questioning the truth about Big Gov.

“There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily.” —George Washington (1795)

The Demos’ Leftmedia outlets and their Big Tech colluders are both aggressively suppressing reasonable questions about ChiCom Virus treatments and emerging hazards about the various vaccines. They are doing so under the now-ubiquitous umbrella of “fact-checking” social media posts — especially any post that hints at a treatment previously mentioned by former President Donald Trump.

To that end, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) was suspended from Google-owned YouTube because he posted a video that referenced evidence that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) might have had therapeutic benefits.

As you recall, HCQ is an inexpensive prescription drug dispensed primarily to fight malaria. It’s been around since the 1940s, and it was first mentioned by President Trump on 19 March of last year — a mention based on research indicating it might help as a preventive or treatment. HCQ is not an antiviral, but it’s a powerful anti-inflammatory, which a 1995 study by the National Institutes of Health determined was a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus. It is the inflammatory cytokine storm that fills the lungs of high-risk patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and thus requires a ventilator. Many patients, particularly the elderly, never make it off the ventilators as the lung damage from bilateral pneumonia often results in irreparable damage and death.

Trump’s reference to HCQ resulted in his being excoriated by the Leftmedia for spreading “misinformation.”

Last week, Sen. Johnson dared mention a new HCQ study by researchers at the Smith Center for Infectious Diseases & Urban Health and Saint Barnabas Medical Center, who concluded that of 255 mechanically ventilated patients from early in the pandemic, “higher dose HCQ/AZM therapy improved survival by nearly 200%.” The study has yet to be peer-reviewed, but there are other studies here and here affirming the potential benefits of hydroxychloroquine.

Early treatment is key to COVID-19 recovery, and Trump’s use of HCQ may have been a factor in his rapid recovery from the virus last October. But as Johnson noted: “The fact of the matter is because we didn’t have early treatment, I don’t know how many thousands of lives, tens of thousands of lives lost that didn’t need to be lost. … It is a tragedy and blunder on the part of the health agencies.”

There has been additional and substantial evidence supporting the use of HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19.

Dr. Steven Hatfill, a veteran virologist affiliated with George Washington University Medical Center, and principal author of “Three Seconds Until Midnight – Preparing for the Next Pandemic” which he wrote a year before the ChiCom Virus hit, noted last August: “There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 infections. So, why is the media still spreading misinformation?”

Dr. Harvey Risch, MD, PhD, Professor of Epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, reported last November: “What I have observed is that while there have been positive reports about a number of drugs, every study of outpatient use of one drug, hydroxychloroquine, with or without accompanying agents, has shown substantial benefit in reducing risks of hospitalization and mortality. … So what did I find about hydroxychloroquine in early use among high-risk outpatients? The first thing is that hydroxychloroquine is exceedingly safe.

Common sense tells us this, that a medication safely used for 65 years by hundreds of millions of people in tens of billions of doses worldwide, prescribed without routine screening EKGs, given to adults, children, pregnant women and nursing mothers, must be safe when used in the initial viral-replication phase of an illness that is similar at that point to colds or flu. … About studies of hydroxychloroquine early use in high-risk outpatients, every one of them, and there are now seven studies, has shown significant benefit… As I have said on many occasions, the evidence for benefit of hydroxychloroquine used early in high-risk outpatients is extremely strong, and the evidence against harm is also equally strong. This body of evidence dramatically outweighs the risk/benefit evidence for remdesivir, monoclonal antibodies or the difficult to use bamlanivimab that the FDA has approved for emergency use authorizations while denying the emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine. This egregious double standard for hydroxychloroquine needs to be overturned immediately and its emergency use authorization application approved. This is how we will get on the road to early outpatient treatment and the major curtailment of mortality.”

In March of this year, Dr. Peter McCullough, MD, MPH at Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute, wrote in the American Journal of Medicine, “In an emergency response to the COVID worldwide pandemic, we believe it is more prudent to act now based on clinical judgment with the early use of therapies based on the pathophysiology of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19 illness as disclosed.” He added: “[A] recent meta-analysis from Ladapo et al from the available 5 randomized clinical trials enrolling 5577 ambulatory patients treated early in the course of infection with hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine was associated with a 24% relative risk reduction in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, or death.”

But because Trump suggested it, the Leftmedia and social media platforms buried it — much as they did Trump’s insistence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus likely originated in China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology P4 lab. Only now, 16 months and millions of deaths later, is the lab origin assessment making it into the mainstream media.

As it stands, we will never know how many COVID-19 patients might have benefitted from HCQ as part of their treatment. But as we pass the 600,000 death mark this week, renowned New Jersey epidemiologist Dr. Stephen Smith estimates as many as 100,000 lives might have been saved.

Senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, Victor Davis Hanson, concluded, “Irrationally hating everything Donald Trump touched was not just pathological, it often became downright scary — and deadly — for Americans.”

There are serious questions about Anthony Fauci’s resistance to HCQ treatment that must be answered by the scientific community – sooner rather than later – not that any bureaucrat, especially Fauci, will ever be held accountable. It is very troubling that there is such a disconnect between esteemed medical experts on each side of the HCQ argument, but one thing there is not much disagreement on is that HCQ is generally safe.

However, much as Trump’s assertion about the WIV lab origins of COVID-19 has now become mainstream, speculation about anti-Trump political resistance to using HCQ should also rise to mainstream discussion.

The social media silencing of Sen. Johnson coincided with another blackout — the suppression of reports of the relationship between the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and myocarditis (heart inflammation), particularly in younger men.

That concern is now the focus of a CDC emergency meeting scheduled for this Friday (18 June). Understanding the increased incidence of myocarditis in ages 16 to 24 is particularly important given the growing chorus of secondary schools and colleges requiring vaccination as a condition of attendance. Likewise, many employers of young people may mandate the vaccine as a term of employment.

Notably, the country’s largest teachers union, the National Education Association, though supporting vaccinations, is not demanding COVID-19 vaccination for teachers and students, nor is the second largest union, the American Federation of Teachers, pushing for that requirement.

Fact is, a substantial number of CDC and FDA employees, and those of Fauci’s NIAID, have not taken the vaccine. Less than 43% of the population has been fully vaccinated, and states are now giving away free beer and dope, and millions in vaccine lottery winnings, to entice people to take it. (Yes, I note the irony of the lottery gambit to promote the vaccine gambit.)

At the very least, our government should determine whether forcing young people to get the vaccine could be more harmful to them than the virus itself.

But don’t mention heart inflammation on Twitter. As Dr. Tracy Hoeg, MD, PhD, recently noted: “Post-vax myocarditis was clearly above baseline at the end of May. … We are standing on shaky ground if we say the risk to otherwise healthy kids from Covid-19 is higher than it is from the vaccine.” She then posted the study graphics directly from the CDC’s website, and as a result, perhaps fittingly given all the Fauci/CDC flagellation, her post was marked “misleading.” Hoeg responded: “Why is my tweet being labeled as ‘misleading’? I’m discussing the @CDCgov’s own slides. Was it because I was expressing uncertainty about vaccine risks vs. current COVID risks to otherwise healthy kids?”

Most assuredly that was the reason — but Big Tech doesn’t want anyone questioning Big Gov, even when using Big Gov’s own evidence as the basis for that question.

So, who will the social media arbiters of truth sight in on next? I predict Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a cardiothoracic surgery specialist who also holds a PhD in immunology and held teaching positions at Harvard Medical School and the University of Pennsylvania, will be subject to suppression.

According to Dr. Noorchashm, who is also concerned about forcing vaccines on people, particularly those who have already recovered from the virus: “I believe, as we’ve discussed before extensively, that vaccinating people who are COVID recovered in this emergency situation where we’ve basically very rapidly approved this new vaccine, is a colossal error in public health judgment. We’re basically overriding the principles of medical necessity. So, in other words, if a person does not need or stand to benefit from a vaccine, or any medical treatment, they should not be given it because it only opens the door to harm.”

Oh, wait: Google/YouTube already black-holed Dr. Noorchashm’s interview with Tucker Carlson.

Forget I suggested that we should ask questions about the potential negative outcomes of mandating vaccines. Nothing to see here; move along.


Para acessar o Conteúdo acima, acesse a Home Page aqui.

18 views0 comments
bottom of page